Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 28 posts

Re: undefined

#11

Post by realtruth »

teresko wrote: post #7
[deleted] wrote: post #3

[deleted]

There is no need for ad hominem.

On the contrary, this nasty little twat deserves every ad hominem that goes her way. She's an online bully and nothing more. Five minutes on her twitter will show that to you. She's a cancer (and a pathetic beggar as well.)

Edit: Ahh, this parody of a human being has turned up below, after yet again engaging in defamation, harassment and abuse by spamming her twitter about how the guy is a "creepy abuser and rape apologist" for retweeting a tweet. Retweeting someone isn't "harassing other women off the internet" you dribbling mess. No wonder you're a fucking laughing stock.

And I don't use twitter, but nice bubble you're living in there. High again, I take it? Hell, why am I even asking the junkie.

Re: undefined

#12

Post by anon3_ »

bontoJR wrote: post #9

@xmj posted the whole (private) IRC discussion online. Here's the link: https://archive.is/9KGyX#selection-9.6580-9.6583 I don't like to post private conversations, but this has been reported in other communities and it is an important piece of the puzzle to crearly understand the situation. This has to be discussed, because I think we need to fix the gender gap, but this kind of "fundamentalism" is not healthy. This…

I would rather you not repost things that were said in confidence. But if the above is true, I think it's up to them to explain / put the conversation into context.

Simply slapping down evidence on the table really isn't helpful when parties can't explain their side.

Re: undefined

#13

Post by futaba »

realtruth wrote: post #8

He isn't a "GG" at all. Harper's just being her usual nasty self and throwing her considerable weight around. If anyone's hurting anyone's rep it's that clown.

She isn't autistic. Some quack diagnosed her with "Aspergers" and she latched on to it because there's a connotation that people with aspergers are usually intelligent.

She appears to just be an angry narcissist.

Re: undefined

#14

Post by realtruth »

futaba wrote: post #13
realtruth wrote: post #8

He isn't a "GG" at all. Harper's just being her usual nasty self and throwing her considerable weight around. If anyone's hurting anyone's rep it's that clown.

She isn't autistic. Some quack diagnosed her with "Aspergers" and she latched on to it because there's a connotation that people with aspergers are usually intelligent. She appears to just be an angry narcissist.

Fair enough, she's not autistic she's just a truly awful human being with no idea how bad she comes across to normal people.

Re: undefined

#15

Post by bontoJR »

anon3_ wrote: post #12
bontoJR wrote: post #9

@xmj posted the whole (private) IRC discussion online. Here's the link: https://archive.is/9KGyX#selection-9.6580-9.6583 I don't like to post private conversations, but this has been reported in other communities and it is an important piece of the puzzle to crearly understand the situation. This has to be discussed, because I think we need to fix the gender gap, but this kind of "fundamentalism" is not healthy. This…

I would rather you not repost things that were said in confidence. But if the above is true, I think it's up to them to explain / put the conversation into context. Simply slapping down evidence on the table really isn't helpful when parties can't explain their side.

I agree with you, in fact I clearly said that I don't like to do this kind of things. But this is basically everywhere now, with 2-3 keywords in Google is easy to be found.

I posted it because it shows how bad is this and how it has gone far from by being a simple "contrast of opinions". One of the 2 guys involved posted this online, I think this deserves to be discussed and explained.

Re: undefined

#16

Post by anon3_ »

bontoJR wrote: post #15
anon3_ wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would rather you not repost things that were said in confidence. But if the above is true, I think it's up to them to explain / put the conversation into context. Simply slapping down evidence on the table really isn't helpful when parties can't explain their side.

I agree with you, in fact I clearly said that I don't like to do this kind of things. But this is basically everywhere now, with 2-3 keywords in Google is easy to be found. I posted it because it shows how bad is this and how it has gone far from by being a simple "contrast of opinions". One of the 2 guys involved posted this online, I think this deserves to be discussed and explained.

And what is your take on the conversation? What am I looking at?

Re: undefined

#17

Post by futaba »

bontoJR wrote: post #9

@xmj posted the whole (private) IRC discussion online. Here's the link: https://archive.is/9KGyX#selection-9.6580-9.6583 I don't like to post private conversations, but this has been reported in other communities and it is an important piece of the puzzle to crearly understand the situation. This has to be discussed, because I think we need to fix the gender gap, but this kind of "fundamentalism" is not healthy. This…

Wow. She really comes off as histrionic, entitled, and a little bit of a paranoiac in those logs. No wonder she didn't want them shared.

Serious emotional problems.

Re: undefined

#18

Post by teresko »

realtruth wrote: post #11
teresko wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no need for ad hominem.

On the contrary, this nasty little twat deserves every ad hominem that goes her way. She's an online bully and nothing more. Five minutes on her twitter will show that to you. She's a cancer (and a pathetic beggar as well.) Edit: Ahh, this parody of a human being has turned up below, after yet again engaging in defamation, harassment and abuse by spamming her twitter about how the guy is a "creepy abuser and rape apo…

In that case, this applies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE

Re: undefined

#19

Post by bontoJR »

anon3_ wrote: post #16
bontoJR wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you, in fact I clearly said that I don't like to do this kind of things. But this is basically everywhere now, with 2-3 keywords in Google is easy to be found. I posted it because it shows how bad is this and how it has gone far from by being a simple "contrast of opinions". One of the 2 guys involved posted this online, I think this deserves to be discussed and explained.

And what is your take on the conversation? What am I looking at?

I believe she has a point when talking about how bad is the current tech scene for women. It's still a kind of "men club".

The environment is not friendly, it's getting better, but I can't consider it genuinely equal. In the opposite I think the way she's trying to pursuit the goal is wrong and counterproductive. There are many other ways to achieve a goal like promoting gender equality in tech scene, fighting with insults and expose (barely) fundamentalist opinions on Twitter would not help.

Re: undefined

#20

Post by freebsdgirl »

realtruth wrote: post #11
teresko wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no need for ad hominem.

On the contrary, this nasty little twat deserves every ad hominem that goes her way. She's an online bully and nothing more. Five minutes on her twitter will show that to you. She's a cancer (and a pathetic beggar as well.) Edit: Ahh, this parody of a human being has turned up below, after yet again engaging in defamation, harassment and abuse by spamming her twitter about how the guy is a "creepy abuser and rape apo…

someone's mad they are on the blocklist. ^.^
Post reply on HN